My understanding is that he admits to having sex with a woman who he says gave consent.
He doesn't accept is that even if consent were given, she was too drunk to have legally given consent. That's why he doesn't believe he's a rapist.
According to the law, it's ultimately a man's responsibility to not have sex with a drunk woman otherwise he is a rapist because she can't have legally consented.
What I don't know is if he'd been drinking. They were in town for a night out so that would possibly mean yes they'd been drinking too?
What I do feel is that if a woman can't be deemed capable of giving consent when drunk, how can a man be deemed capable of making a judgement call on her ability to give consent?
If he'd not been drinking then even with my concerns of a man's judgement being impaired by alcohol, there would be no moral mitigation of impairment of judgement.
If he had been drinking, I personally think it's fair to assume if a woman's judgement is impaired by drink, so will a man's.
Not an easy subject and one I have strong views on as a rape victim myself.